What Matters from Admissions? Identifying Success and Risk Among Canadian Dental Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aims of this study were to determine whether different student profiles would emerge in terms of high and low GPA performance in each year of dental school and to investigate the utility of preadmissions variables in predicting performance and performance stability throughout each year of dental school. Data from 11 graduating cohorts (2004-14) at the Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry, University of Western Ontario, Canada, were collected and analyzed using bivariate correlations, latent profile analysis, and hierarchical generalized linear models (HGLMs). The data analyzed were for 616 students in total (332 males and 284 females). Four models were developed to predict adequate and poor performance throughout each of four dental school years. An additional model was developed to predict student performance stability across time. Two separate student profiles reflecting high and low GPA performance across each year of dental school were identified, and scores on cognitive preadmissions variables differentially predicted the probability of grouping into high and low performance profiles. Students with higher pre-dental GPAs and DAT chemistry were most likely to remain stable in a high-performance group across each year of dental school. Overall, the findings suggest that selection committees should consider pre-dental GPA and DAT chemistry scores as important tools for predicting dental school performance and stability across time. This research is important in determining how to better predict success and failure in various areas of preclinical dentistry courses and to provide low-performing students with adequate academic assistance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".